Milo Yiannopoulos; the man twitter banned got a book deal. Currently #2 on Amazon.

[Amarok]

Yup and I hold myself to that same standard if you going to go around spewing bile to piss people off and stir up anger by being as vile as possible. Then don't be surprised if it comes back to bit you. what goes around comes around. Those who are not willing to endure all for there beliefs clearly have none. Milo issue is he thinks he entitled to a soap box and whines when ones not provided so he can make an ass of himself and waste peoples time.

---

That is free speech fundamentalism

No.  That's not free speech fundamentalism, that's ludicrous and dangerous.  I really don't know how to respond to this.

You're saying:  People who respond violently to speech that upsets them shouldn't be arrested, and it's the fault of the one who expressed the speech.  They should've simply kept their mouth shut if they didn't want to be assaulted.

That's the opposite of the principle of free speech.  I feel like I'm taking crazy pills; I can't be the only one here who thinks that's a horrible viewpoint to hold.

As I said if you provoke people on purpose to anger the way milo does the way my Klan scenario does.  Then your entitled to no  protection. Now I of course would stand up for someone being beaten for expressing there opinion(even Milo) but it's not an entitlement. And no it's not your free to speak your not entitled to protection from the consequences of what you say.

and yes it's free speech fundamentalism because if you believed in it there shouldn't be anything  you fear saying nor should you fear the consequences

[FatAndFaithless]

I don't know how to parse that unintelligible post. Someone makes you angry with what they say (even on purpose), you just resort to violence and you're in the right? Fuck off.

[Amarok]

I don't know how to parse that unintelligible post.  Someone makes you angry with what they say (even on purpose), you just resort to violence and you're in the right?  Fuck off.

I said nothing about them being in the right or said they should. I in fact in my last post  said just the opposite which is why I would stand up for them. But they have no entitlement that other people protect them from the consequences of what they say .I still would. We still should. But Milo has no right to it .he is entitled to speak and nothing else.

[FatAndFaithless]

I don't know how to parse that unintelligible post.  Someone makes you angry with what they say (even on purpose), you just resort to violence and you're in the right?  Fuck off.

I said nothing about them being in the right or said they should. I in fact in my last post  said just the opposite which is why I would stand up for them. But they have no entitlement that other people protect them from the consequences of what they say .I still would. We still should. But Milo has no right to it .he is entitled to speak and nothing else.

You've already said that the ones who respond with violence shouldn't be arrested, and that it's the fault of the one expressing his views, who should've kept their mouth shut if they didn't want to get hurt.  That's abhorrent.

[SteelCurtain]

It's a horrible viewpoint, to be sure, but I think Orochi is only talking about the extreme.

At some point, a person whose speech is inciting violence should be held accountable for that speech. At what point does a person who does something like screaming racial epithets in a black neighborhood become responsible for doing so? For another extreme, if someone came to a crowd of children and started talking about raping them, would it be out of bounds for a parent to attack that person rather than call the police and wait for them to show up? I mean they can remove their own child, but what about all of the other children there?

Does that person deserve to be attacked? I think there is an argument there. And not just an "I want to make him hurt" retributive thing.

Now does this in any way apply to Milo? No. This is just some extreme example. For the most part, if you constantly spew the hatred that Milo does, you should expect and prepare for violence, but you don't deserve it. I do think he pushes the envelope specifically to piss people off enough so that he can use the outbursts to advance his agenda. That adds an extra layer of sliminess to it.

[FatAndFaithless]

It's a horrible viewpoint, to be sure, but I think Orochi is only talking about the extreme.

At some point, a person whose speech is inciting violence should be held accountable for that speech. At what point does a person who does something like screaming racial epithets in a black neighborhood become responsible for doing so? For another extreme, if someone came to a crowd of children and started talking about raping them, would it be out of bounds for a parent to attack that person rather than call the police and wait for them to show up? I mean they can remove their own child, but what about all of the other children there?

Does that person deserve to be attacked? I think there is an argument there. And not just an "I want to make him hurt" retributive thing.

Now does this in any way apply to Milo? No. This is just some extreme example. For the most part, if you constantly spew the hatred that Milo does, you should expect and prepare for violence, but you don't deserve it. I do think he pushes the envelope specifically to piss people off enough so that he can use the outbursts to advance his agenda. That adds an extra layer of sliminess to it.

Orochi has explicitly said that those who assault the ones expressing the speech shouldn't be arrested.  That's the biggest thing for me.

And I already touched on the inciting violence/threat-making point in my first post.  Obviously if they're inciting violence or making threats, they can be arrested for that - that's already illegal.  I'm specifically talking about the response of others to the speech.  Responding violently to legal expression of speech is not allowable. And as is obvious from previous posts, Orochi clearly thinks Milo does deserve it, contrary to what you say in your post.

Sorry, I didn't expect this to be a controversial view - that responding to speech with violence is something that should not happen, and we should take every measure to punish those that do.

[Amarok]

I said nothing about them being in the right or said they should. I in fact in my last post  said just the opposite which is why I would stand up for them. But they have no entitlement that other people protect them from the consequences of what they say .I still would. We still should. But Milo has no right to it .he is entitled to speak and nothing else.

You've already said that the ones who respond with violence shouldn't be arrested, and that it's the fault of the one expressing his views, who should've kept their mouth shut if they didn't want to get hurt.  That's abhorrent.

Yes they should not arrested they should be stopped I would try and stop them but arrested no . And it is his fault no one made him speak is he a puppet? if he is not responsible for his words and intentions of those words who is?
And he also bears sole responsibility for the consequences of those words and intentions . Should there be protection ? yes . Would I protect them? yes .Are they entitled to anyone's protection? no. should they be allowed to speak ? yes. are they entitled to a soap box ? no

[FatAndFaithless]

You've already said that the ones who respond with violence shouldn't be arrested, and that it's the fault of the one expressing his views, who should've kept their mouth shut if they didn't want to get hurt.  That's abhorrent.

Yes they should not arrested they should be stopped I would try and stop them but arrested no . And it is his fault no one made him speak is he a puppet? if he is not responsible for his words and intentions of those words who is?
And he also bears sole responsibility for the consequences of those words and intentions . Should there be protection ? yes . Would I protect them? yes .Are they entitled to anyone's protection? no. should they be allowed to speak ? yes. are they entitled to a soap box ? no

Bolded mine.  That's the part that's got a bug in my bonnet about this. The whole 'he should've kept his mouth shut if he didn't want to get assaulted, and the ones who assaulted him should go free.'

[SteelCurtain]

Oh I am not defending Orochi. I was just expanding on his point how I see it.

I agree with you. If you punch a Nazi, I will clap, but I also think you should be arrested.

[Amarok]

It's a horrible viewpoint, to be sure, but I think Orochi is only talking about the extreme.

At some point, a person whose speech is inciting violence should be held accountable for that speech. At what point does a person who does something like screaming racial epithets in a black neighborhood become responsible for doing so? For another extreme, if someone came to a crowd of children and started talking about raping them, would it be out of bounds for a parent to attack that person rather than call the police and wait for them to show up? I mean they can remove their own child, but what about all of the other children there?

Does that person deserve to be attacked? I think there is an argument there. And not just an "I want to make him hurt" retributive thing.

Now does this in any way apply to Milo? No. This is just some extreme example. For the most part, if you constantly spew the hatred that Milo does, you should expect and prepare for violence, but you don't deserve it. I do think he pushes the envelope specifically to piss people off enough so that he can use the outbursts to advance his agenda. That adds an extra layer of sliminess to it.

Some one finally  gets it (gold star) thou I will admit I got emotional in some of my language Milo has that effect on me

Thou I will disagree in Milo case but we disagree on that